Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Gerasene Demoniac

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Emmanuel Fritsch wrote -- ... Brian Wilson replied -- ... Emmanuel Fritsch responded -- ... Emmanuel, If we assume the 2DH, then Matthew kept not only the
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote --
      >And how do they explain that Matthew preferred to keep the non
      >capernaum-like verses of the story?
      Brian Wilson replied --
      >This is observably untrue. Matthew kept some of the Capernaum-like
      >verses --
      >Capernaum Demoniac (Mk 1.23b-24) --
      >And he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have
      >you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."
      >Gadarene Demoniacs (Mt 8.29) --
      >And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God.
      >Have you come here to torment us before the time?"
      >The similarities in Greek are --
      >Mk 1.23 KAI ANEKRACEN
      >Mt 8.29 KAI...ANEKRACEN
      >Mk 1.24 LEGWN TI hHMIN KAI SOI
      >Mk 1.24 TOU QEOU
      >Mt 8.29 TOU QEOU
      >Mk 1.24 HLQES...hHMAS
      >Mt 8.39 HLQES...hHMAS
      >It is not true, therefore, that Matthew preferred to keep the non-
      >Capernaum Demoniac verses from the Gerasene Demoniac story in Mark.
      Emmanuel Fritsch responded --
      >OK, you are right. He chooses to keep with a special care only the cry
      >of the demoniac. This is the central verses of the passage. But
      >globally, (if 2DH is true) then Matthew preferred to keep the non
      >capernaum-like verses of the story. Why ?
      If we assume the 2DH, then Matthew kept not only the words
      spoken by the demoniac, but also the narrative statement that he "cried
      aloud, saying". The agreements are significant, and certainly not the
      result of mere coincidence. It takes only one counter-example to
      disprove the general rule. The agreements are a counter-example, and
      therefore disprove your general statement. They show that your analysis
      is wrong. The agreements show that it is just not true that "globally",
      if the 2DH is assumed, then Matthew preferred to keep the non-Capernaum-
      like verses. He did prefer to keep some of the Capernaum-like verses.
      There is no global preference to omit them.

      Emmanuel Fritsch continued --
      >Thank you for your demonstration on vocabulary of v.7. But why the
      >Lukan words ("Most high" in the v.7) we find in Mark has disappeared
      >in the Matthean version ?
      Why should they not disappear? Assuming the 2DH, Matthew is massively
      abbreviating this story, as he does a great deal of material from Mark.
      Davies and Allison say, in fact, that "Matthew is again abbreviating"
      (page 81).

      Emmanuel Fritsch had asked --
      >How do they explain that Matthew changed absolutely all Lukan-like
      >wording he found in Mark ?
      Brian Wilson had replied --
      >It is totally impossible to observe that Matthew changed anything
      >whatsoever in Mark. We cannot observe redaction in any synoptic gospel.
      >I have already made this point, and you have already agreed with me. So
      >there is no need to explain the hypothetical redaction you describe. We
      >should not expect Davies and Allison to explain what cannot be
      Emmanuel Fritsch responded --
      >I just apply the 2DH, which according you offer a "convincing"
      >explanation for Gerasene Demoniac process : You said that it
      >is possible to build a valid theory positing that Matthew work
      >from the text of Mark.
      That is not the point. You still have failed to describe what it is that
      can be observed in the synoptic gospels that you want explained under
      the 2DH. If I had never heard of any synoptic document hypothesis, and
      just had a synopsis of Matthew, Mark and Luke, how would I find "Lukan-
      like wording" in the Gerasene Demoniac in Mark? After all, the word KAI
      is very common in Luke. In fact it occurs 1469 times in the gospel of
      Luke, more times than in Matthew or Mark. Is that what you mean? If so,
      then Matthew uses a Lukan-like word, KAI, about 8 times in his version
      of the Gadarene Demoniac(s). If a word that occurs 1469 times in Luke is
      not Lukan, then what word is? How do we find words that are "Lukan-like
      wording". You have not told us, have you?
      >I said that this theory is not valid, since if it is true, then Matthew
      >has changed all the lukan vocabulary he found in Mark. And how to
      >explain why he would have done so ?
      I am really not sure that there is anything to explain. What is "lukan
      vocabulary"? On 29th May, I asked you --
      >Is "Lukan wording" wording in the style of the writer of the
      >gospel of Luke? If so, then how do we discover what his style was?
      You seem to have no answer to this question.
      >If 2DH is true, i.e. if Matthew writes his gospel from Mark, then it
      >can be observed that Matthew has kept preferentially the part of Mark
      >story with the lukan vocabulary. But he cancelled lukan vocabulary.
      I am not sure that any such thing can be observed. How can we observe
      "lukan vocabulary" when we do not even know how to recognize whether a
      word fits this description?

      I would ask again, Is "Lukan wording" wording in the style of the
      writer of the gospel of Luke? If so, then how do we discover what his
      style was?

      Best wishes,
      E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.